Posted in Action / Culture / TV & Movies / Reviews on Sunday, November 8, 2015 by Joel Höglund

James Bond returns in a new action-packed movie, and as one of our few heroes of modern times, he deserves some analysis. When GoldenEye was released I was eight years old and the perfect age to not be fed up with the clichés. All things were new and exciting, from the Russian accents to the high-tech gadgets. The fantastic N64 game didn't lessen the hype either.

For a more in-depth analysis of James Bond, I'd suggest you read Jef Costello's excellent article The Importance of James Bond over at Counter Currents.

This is the fourth and presumably last movie starring Daniel Craig. Initially he seemed like a bold choice, far from the gentleman agent we had come to know, but has proved beyond all expectations. Casino Royale was a great reboot to the somewhat tired series and although Quantum of Solace was a disappointment, Skyfall made up for this.

The latest movie in the series, Spectre, recently premiered and I spent one Friday evening with it. A new Bond movie is always noteworthy for it's positive portrayal of masculine values, but this one surprised me with multiple references to our current political situation. Sadly though, not in a good way. I'll list some of the most obvious ones below, but if you haven't watched the movie yet I'll have to warn you that there are some spoilers.

  • The octopus - Although the symbol of the Spectre organization first showed up in Dr. No released in 1962 and has since figured in many movies, it was not as heavily associated to the agenda of the New World Order. The intro sequence of Spectre sports several dark octopuses looming over them, reminiscent of World War II posters. I wonder: is it irony or a homage? Another disturbing image is the cracked mirrors, standard symbolism of the dissociated mind.

  • The meeting of an international cabal - Bond early infiltrates a meeting of the organization. What is weird is that it looks more like an UN meeting with the participants all speaking their native languages. Even weirder they discuss their evil plans selling vaccines and their control of online pharmacies!
  • Bond gets some sort of nanotech tracking device injected into his bloodstream, although this time it is not only a microchip, instead it mixes with his blood and presumably spreads out through his body. Daniel Craig's James Bond was already chipped and tracked in Casino Royale using a normal microchip. Of course the viewers can't be expected to remember that, but why was this excessive blood technology necessary? Anyway the tracking device was on the whole unnecessary, having no effect in the plot what so ever, but I guess it fits with the surveillance theme at least.
  • The villain and his protege both slander democracy, even though they effectively manipulate the democratic process to implement their surveillance system and get access to the all the participating countries intelligence. The meeting of this vote is even referred to as discussing the New World Order by M.
  • Although a minor point, there is a scene with a controlled demolition initiated by our main villain. It is not a complete imitation of 9/11, as the building in question was slated for demolition. But as the movie has shown the organization capable of instigating terrorist action in whichever country, perhaps this is just a matter of leaving the puzzle pieces for you to fit together by yourself.

Are these details signs of a conspiracy or is it just the director playing on the real fears and myths in our times? When the Russians were the supposed threat to Britain's safety, Bond fought them. Today when people rightfully fear surveillance and supranational government, Bond has to adjust accordingly?

If it truly is symbols put there by the people in the know, then why would they do that? Why would they reveal their hand instead of operating in total secrecy?

Well, there are many theories on this. One argument is that Hollywood and others in the pockets of Zio-controlled media, uses these techniques to make us unconsciously accustomed to their agenda. Another argument is that they willingly present their ideas, methods and symbols in movies and music so that when people fight the very same things in the real world, they can only point and say "you've watched too many movies son" or "that's fiction, you conspiracy nut".

We will probably have reason to return to questions like these in the future. I recommend The Vigilant Citizen for more information on these symbols and why they are present in almost all Hollywood productions.

Returning to the movie itself, is it any good? Well if I had watched only one scene I would probably have said: Wow, that looks like one sweet Bond movie. Sadly, the whole thing put together into a two and a half hour movie however, comes out as an unconvincing mess. Visually, the movie is stunning, but only surface can't save the movie by itself.

The plot is thin and most scenes seem to be there mostly to fill out space and of course to deliver the mandatory car chases and seduction scenes. Now don't get me wrong, I love these things in a James Bond movie, but this time they seemed to be stuffed in there just to give it the appearance of a Bond movie.

The main villain comes of as almost a caricature, and while I won't spoil the details, his motivations and relationship to James Bond rather makes you think of Dr. Evil in Austin Powers.

In conclusion, there is nothing particularly anti-white in this movie. The new Moneypenny from Skyfall is black, but other than that the main cast is all white. The Bond girl is a strong woman reminiscent to some extent of a feminist fantasy, but at least she is blond and beautiful. As Jef Costello notes in his article, strong Bond girls are nothing out of the ordinary either.

Among the Bond movies, this one is mediocre at best. You could watch it as an exercise in spotting NWO symbolism but other than that, this movie will probably fall out of our collective conscious as soon as possible. And that is all for the best.

Last updated on Monday, June 13, 2016